It seems that the bump in the response 500-1000hz definitely belongs to the SS when mounted on small baffle.
www.audioexcite.com ScanSpeak 18W/8545-01
Probably other reflections make things worse in your case, at the listening distance...
From a previous photo of the system under discussion, the Scanspeak 18W/8545 is mounted in a enclosed cabinet with a trapezoidal shaped front panel. Unless some experimental evidence is at hand, rather than borrowing material from another site it cannot be concluded that the broad rise from 400 to just above 1kHz (audioexite, graph ) is due to a baffle artifact. Certainly Scanspeak's data sheets show a problem near 1kHz which is suspicious for a bass/midrange speaker. I would be guessing as to the cause and things such as cavity resonances within the magnet assembly or various surround/cone interactions should be taken into account. When mounted into an enclosure, a standing wave could be responsible for the bump. For an open baffle it is a general rule to make the shortest dimension equal to a half wavelength in size of the lowest 'knee' frequency that is required i.e. response will fall at -6dB /octave below the knee.
Ok, so i hope you can export your pir to text file ( ASCI file menu)...
Btw, i see it is the Scan Speak response alone, not the monitor's response ....
As you said that you are satisfied with the sound of your 2 way monitor and intention is simply to add a 3rd way to it, why not start with a measurement of the monitor itself as it is now?
Maybe it will be necessary to rework the monitor's xover, maybe not...
No problem with polarity, just will be set as needed when needed...
Btw, i see it is the Scan Speak response alone, not the monitor's response ....
As you said that you are satisfied with the sound of your 2 way monitor and intention is simply to add a 3rd way to it, why not start with a measurement of the monitor itself as it is now?
Maybe it will be necessary to rework the monitor's xover, maybe not...
No problem with polarity, just will be set as needed when needed...
Last edited:
Think we can soften that bump without changing the whole monitor filter...
I like the tweeter response, considering you listen a 3.5m in an untreated room.😉
This measurement is done 50-60 cm from the loudspeaker in the middle of room.
Last edited:
Yes, but at the listening position, it is flat.
It is impossible to be flat both anechoic and in room at 3m.
If you were flat anechoic, response in room would be downwards, and dull sounding.
Anyway i think you might try this which i think will sound and measure balanced at your listening position.
Anyway i would rework the xover on the monitor.
But the main issue is not to fine tune the mids, simply to find out how to fight bass heavyness due to room placement which is the main threat on your project for the moment.
Anyway i would rework the xover on the monitor.
But the main issue is not to fine tune the mids, simply to find out how to fight bass heavyness due to room placement which is the main threat on your project for the moment.
Attachments
Last edited:
I have done this one, what kind of measurement: near field box in the middle of room mic situated 50cm or box situated in the corner & mic in the listening position?
No, this one boosts way too low. You must boost the SBA above that to level the response with the SS bump. But of course this is not from the anechoic point of view, simply based on the target for the in room response at YOUR 3.5m listening position, whichis also the position for this measurement.
Measuring at 60cm is necessary to know better the response of the monitor, but useless to check woofer integration.
As commented a few pages before, a valid target for room response might be the red line.
If this is to be achieved, the only way is to boost the 2 areas in yellow, instead attenuating smoothing anything which might only make things worse.
PD:Instead of the impulse of your measurements, you can export the frequency response to txt file and upload this.
If this is to be achieved, the only way is to boost the 2 areas in yellow, instead attenuating smoothing anything which might only make things worse.
PD:Instead of the impulse of your measurements, you can export the frequency response to txt file and upload this.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.